DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. Claims 1-17 are pending.
3. Claims 1-17 are examined herein.
4. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
5. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s statements in the Remarks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Written Description
7. Claims 1-17 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s arguments submitted on September 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant claims a seed of hybrid cucumber plant designated as “VC18013053”; parts of said plant, tissue culture obtained from said plant; and methods of using the plant.
Applicant describes the morphological and physiological characteristics of hybrid cucumber VC18013053 (see pages 13-15; Table 1).
However, Applicant’s has not sufficiently described the invention as claimed.
MPEP 2402 provides that every patent must contain a written description of the invention sufficient to enable a person skilled in the art to which the invention pertains to make and use the invention. Where the invention involves a biological material and words alone cannot sufficiently describe how to make and use the invention in a reproducible manner, access to the biological material may be necessary for the satisfaction of the statutory requirements for patentability under 35 U.S.C. 112 [emphasis added].
As with other biological material deposited for purposes of patents for inventions under 35 U.S.C. 101, the deposit of plant material together with the written specification must enable those skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention, in accordance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. See MPEP 2403.02.
MPEP 2163(I) also provides that “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1613. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 ( “reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 FR 34,864 (August 22, 1989) ("The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement." Id. at 34,880.).
Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant matter, the specification only provides a description of the traits of cucumber variety VC18013053, but is silent with respect to the breeding history of said variety. This breeding history is critical because it provides the genetics of the variety and, in turn, its corresponding traits. Thus, in the absence of a breeding history, the specification has failed to provide an adequate written description of the claimed variety.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant must amend the specification/drawings to provide the breeding history used to develop the instant cucumber hybrid variety. When identifying the breeding history, applicant should identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instant variety.
For example, if Applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary line names, applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary lines, especially publicly disclosed or patented line information.
Or, if the breeding history encompasses a locus conversion or a backcrossing process, Applicant should clearly indicate the recurrent parent and the donor plant and specifically name the trait or transgenic event that is being donated to the recurrent parent. If one of the parents is a backcross progeny or locus converted line of a publicly disclosed line, applicant should provide the breeding history of the parent line as well (i.e. grandparents).
Applicant is also reminded that they have a duty to disclose information material to patentability. Applicant should also notate the most similar plants which should include any other plants created using similar breeding history (such as siblings of the instant variety). This information can be submitted in an IDS with a notation of the relevancy to the instant application or as information submitted as described in MPEP 724 (e.g., trade secret, proprietary, and Protective Order).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues as follows: “Applicant has satisfied the requirement for deposit of the biological material as claimed and the Specification, at paragraph [0091], makes reference “to a deposit in a public depository.” Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art could obtain the genetic information from the deposited seeds from the ATCC depositor by “following the appropriate techniques to excise the nucleotide sequences from the deposited organisms containing those sequence.” Enzo Biochem, Inc., 323 F.3d 965. The written description requirement under 35 U.S.C § 112 does not require a “breeding history of said variety” and it is indisputable that the public, by having access to a seed deposit, could study the genetics of the seed variety and in turn the seed’s corresponding traits. In other words, based on the Specification providing a description of the traits and reference to the seed deposit (see Specification, Table 1 and paragraph [0091]) and the genetic material as accessible from the biological deposits, Applicant satisfied the written description requirement, and Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the forgoing rejection” (pages 6-7 of the Remarks).
Applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive. The best starting point for a written description analysis is not the interpretation of the patent law by courts, but the text of the statue itself. With respect to written description, 35 USC § 112(a) states: “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention…” (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, the plain language of the statute makes it clear that Applicant must provide in the specification a written description. The only question is what constitutes an “adequate written description”. This is a fact-based inquiry performed by the factfinder (the USPTO examiner) when analyzing the nature of the invention.
In the instant case, the Office has made a finding of fact that for the instant variety the minimum description is the combination of the phenotype and genotype (breeding history). The criticality of a breeding history in assessing the intellectual property rights of a plant is well recognized in the field of plant breeding. With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”. Other bodies that grant intellectual property protection for plant varieties require breeding information to evaluate whether protection should be granted to new varieties. A breeding history, including information about parentage and breeding methodology, is part of the requirements of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) applications. That information is used to “determine if development is sufficient to consider the variety new” (See “Applying for a Plant Variety Certificate of Protection” by the USDA, Exhibit A). Additionally, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) considers breeding history and methodology part of its evaluation of essentially derived plant varieties (See UPOV EDV Explanatory Notes, 14 and 30 (2017)). While the USPTO, USDA, and UPOV have different laws governing intellectual property rights, all recognize that a breeding history is an essential part of adequate description of the plant sought to be protected.
The breeding history is also necessary to aid in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in plants where genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety. Historically, the USPTO has considered breeding history information when determining the patentability of a new plant variety. (See Ex Parte C (USPQ 2d 1492 (1992) and Ex Parte McGowen - Board Decision in Application 14/996,093). In both of these cases, there were many differences cited by the applicant when comparing the prior art and the new plant variety. However, because the breeding history was available, these differences were deemed to be obvious and within the natural variation expected in a backcrossing breeding process. Without a breeding history in these cases, a complete comparison with the prior art could not have been possible.
Moreover, a specification lacking a breeding history hampers the public’s ability to resolve infringement analysis with plants already in the prior art as well as plants that have not yet been patented. Because the instant specification lacks the breeding history, the public will not be able to fully resolve questions of infringement. Since the breeding history, including the parents, is not known to the public, the public could only rely on the phenotypes of the claimed plants for assessing potential infringement.
As seen above in Ex Parte C and Ex Parte McGowan, a trait table is insufficient to differentiate varieties by itself. It has been long established that intracultivar heterogeneity exists in crop species. Haun teaches that the assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false. (See Haun, Page 645, left column). Segregation, recombination, DNA transposition, epigenetic processes, and spontaneous mutations are some of the reasons elite cultivar populations will maintain some degree of plant-to-plant variation. (See Haun, Page 645 right column and Page 646 left column). In addition to genetic variation, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. (See Großkinsky, page 5430 left column 1st full paragraph and right column 2nd full paragraph). In view of this variability, a breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed at adequate describe a newly developed plant.
The above publications and relevant court decisions all support the Office finding of fact as to the written description for the instant plant variety (the Office did not cite these findings to clarify the law). Thus, an application that does not clearly describe the breeding history does not provide an adequate written description of the invention.
Applicant’s arguments essentially request that the Office not consider the text of the applicable statute and instead base the decision solely on statements from court/board cases that do not directly decide the issue of what constitutes an adequate written description for a plant variety. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
8. No claims are allowed.
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYKOLA V KOVALENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-6921. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:30 PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHUBO (JOE) ZHOU can be reached at (571)272-0724. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MYKOLA V. KOVALENKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662
Prosecution Insights